How can ANY Democrat defend the detention of Greenwald's partner?

[Ken Burch]

If you support the core values of the Democratic Party, doesn't that give you a personal obligation to OPPOSE the national security state when it clearly oversteps its boundaries? When it treats people like terrorists just because they engage in free speech? When the work against government secrecy(a practice that never has anything but right-wing objectives and right-wing results)?

How can anyone call themselves a Democrat and ever back the use of repression against those who are simply defending the people's right to know?

It's not like secrecy and the shadow world of covert action are wrong when the Republican use them, but ok when our guys do it. Secrecy is always aimed against the common people, against workers, against the poor, and against peace. No one but Reaganites or Nixonites should EVER defend such despicable things.

[cantbeserious]

1. Good Question - Have Wondered The Same

eom

[LearningCurve]

2. Democrats and Progressives are not the same thing necessarily

eom

[HooptieWagon]

6. True that.

Some Democrats have sold out to corporations. They defend cuts to SS and Education, they'll sell out the enviroment and working class for a trade agreement, and are shredding the Bill of Rights. They may call themselves Democrats....but they're just fascists with a smiley face.

[RKP5637]

28. Well said! n/t

[creeksneakers2]

75. Who exactly is willing to pay ordinary Democrats

to "sell out?"

[Zorra]

17. Yes, the conservative Democrats were adamant supporters of slavery at one time,

and a whole bunch of them got Reagan/Bush elected twice.

They are apparently still relatively numerous, and doing their conservative, regressive, nasty RW business on a daily basis.

[backscatter712]

3. "Democrats". Not Democrats. n/t

[silvershadow]

95. What you said. nt

[KoKo]

4. It's been kind of quiet on this board about Defending Miranda....

I've not known what to think about that. Or, maybe there are folks too afraid of getting involved with it. Yet...it's a huge issue.

I don't know why. Maybe someone will come forward to explain it. If reporter's Partner/Spouse is gone after and detained in a major World Airport for 9 Hours...it would seem to be a BIG DEAL.

[proverbialwisdom]

86. Indeed, additional insight from Barry Eisler.

http://barryeisler.blogspot.com

MONDAY, AUGUST 19, 2013

Heathrow Isn't an Incident. It's a Principle

In case you missed it, yesterday for nine hours at Heathrow Airport the UK authorities detained David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, under an anti-terrorism law, and have confiscated all Miranda's electronic gear, including games and a watch. No explanation was given; no news about when or even whether Miranda's property will be returned to him. This is the kind of thing the US likes to criticize when it's China or Iran doing it.

<>

[Little Star]

125. How true the last line from your exerpt....

"This is the kind of thing the US likes to criticize when it's China or Iran doing it."

[WillyT]

5. Gonna Be A Quiet Thread... But We Are Here... With YOU... And David... And Glenn...

[grasswire]

8. ....and all the others who have been shut up, shut down, Willy

It's a long list, and a sorry history.

[WillyT]

11. I Hear Ya... But As The Oldest, With Three Younger Sisters...

I've been dealing with bullies all of my life.

Fortunately... I was so successful... that my sisters started to scare the crap out of me.



Point is... doing the right thing...

NEVER goes out of fashion.

[Swagman]

72. love that as a quote..."doing the right thing

..never goes out of fashion "

[NuclearDem]

7. Apparently pretty easily.

If it's offensive to the administration, they seem to be just fine with him being detained, arrested, intimidated, and/or beaten senseless.

[ChangeUp106]

9. I'm not defending it nor do I care

Just make this NSA story STOP PLEASE! As someone who watches/reads progressive sites all day, I'm sick of it!

EDIT: Before people say "you're not a progressive," what was exposed was important and needs to be reversed but the constant 24/7 coverage is too much. We've known for years the govt. was spying on us. It's a shame we didn't put this much effort into something like health care.

[Cerridwen]

10. Sucks to see daily abuses of "those people" (edited to match edited)

infringing on "your people?"

Tough.

Deal.

When they "come for you" will there be anyone to defend your cause?

I don't care. I'll be long "detained."

eta: fat fingers

additional edit: we did bring this to the attention of many "democrats." They were fine with the anything so long as it benefited them. The rest of us? Who gives a flying fuck.

[burnodo]

13. We did

and they ignored us there as well

[WinkyDink]

43. Perhaps you have ADHD?

[DeSwiss]

101. ''Just make this NSA story STOP PLEASE!''

- When they stop, we'll stop. And as Harry Truman said: ''If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.''

[uponit7771]

12. When you help people who are breaking the law please expect to become a suspect and then

...be treated as such

regards

[burnodo]

14. who broke a law?

nt

[uponit7771]

15. The person who admitted to hiring onto a company for the sole purpose of stealing from it and the

...agency the company was contracted to help?

tia

[burnodo]

16. Was Snowden in London the other day?

[uponit7771]

19. Nope, just the people aiding a law breaker.... further

[burnodo]

21. and "they" were terrorists?

"they" were detained under a terrorism law

[uponit7771]

22. Depends on what they were trying to do with the stolen gov info or what the person who stole them

...were trying to do..

O wait, he already told us...

[burnodo]

24. so "their" status as possible terrorists depends on what the police find?

How do you decide who is a terrorist or not? Were "they" on a list of terrorists?

[uponit7771]

25. Nope, on the word "possible" alone...see, you don't screw with the gov this way and there's no ...

...possible or an extremely slim chance of it.

Possible terrorist is a pretty high bar IIRC

[burnodo]

32. so they should stop you and hold you in the airport for 9 hours

and, that would be ok with you

[uponit7771]

33. If I stole gov info and could be possibly helping terrorist or who the go considers enemies then not

....only should I be held for 9 hours I should be thankful they didn't send my ass to some place were I will be

If I'm helping said person, then I should expect to be fucked with.

EVEN IF THIS WAS UNDER BUSH I would NOT support Snowden...

What he's doing is fucked up in a big way

[burnodo]

39. but you could be a possible terrorist

so you're excusing any detention based on any idea that someone might be a terrorist. Or, are you saying that the UK types knew beforehand who this person was? Does that mean the US orchestrated it?

[uponit7771]

45. Yes, steal gov info give to AQ and help them attack the US to bring down and admin

...not out of the question at all.

That's why you don't steal gov docs that REALLY don't prove a damn thang new

[burnodo]

48. "bring down and(sic) admin"

NOW we're down to the nitty gritty.

And AQ knows its being spied on. American citizens DO NOT know they're being spied on.

[uponit7771]

53. Legitimate link and quote to US citizens being "spied" on!? Videoing a person walking into a store

...from across the street is NOT spying on them.

Looking at your internet traffic isn't either, it's on a public street

regards

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

74. It's going to be pretty hard to believe that the NSA

isn't doing all of those things, and how are we to find proof that they are or aren't? By trusting a spy agency to tell us?

[Ken Burch]

61. You know perfectly well that Greenwald and Miranda aren't giving info to Al Qaida.

A gay couple would simply never do that, for God's sakes.

[uponit7771]

63. lol....had me, GG is an asshole...I've seen him proffer a position and if challenged even a little b

...bit he bites with assholic vitriol.

Then his writings are full of sophistry

[Ken Burch]

65. It doesn't matter what Greenwald is like as a person.

What I was saying there was that nobody would willingly aid an organization that wanted to see that person and all like him and his partner executed.

A gay person aiding AQ would be the equivalent of a Jewish person assisting the Nazis.

[creeksneakers2]

73. They probably are on a terrorist list

Greenwald's other partner is on a watch list. She's been detained every time she's gone to an airport for years. That shoots a hole in the theory that the latest episode must be just an attempt to intimidate Greenwald. It probably doesn't take a big plot to put somebody on a list. There are probably hundreds or even thousands of people who can do it.

It appears though that there was more going on than just a listing in the latest episode. The authorities had strong reason to suspect that classified information was being smuggled. It probably was.

[burnodo]

81. If Miranda was illegally carrying classified information, why wasn't he arrested?

That argument holds no water.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Because he just received data from Laura Poitras perhaps?

[burnodo]

90. That wasn't what I was talking about

why wasn't he arrested??

[VanillaRhapsody]

92. because they found what they were looking for perhaps...

and he wasn't the target? Was he expecting the red carpet treatment?

[creeksneakers2]

94. The information is encrypted

They probably took Miranda's devices in hopes they could decrypt the information.

[noiretextatique]

133. his other partner is an award-winning fillmmaker

not remotely a terrorist, even though she is on the watch list. it has every thing to do with politics, and very little to do with national security.

[burnodo]

20. and who admitted to hiring onto a company for the sole purpose of stealing from it??

never heard that

[uponit7771]

23. Link inside

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/snowden-booz-steal-files/66539/

Snowden Went to Booz Allen to Steal Files, but Didn't He Already Have Some?

[Whisp]

26. now you have heard of that, the link is provided to you below

Here is an excerpt:

For the first time, Snowden has admitted he sought a position at Booz Allen Hamilton so he could collect proof about the US National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programmes ahead of planned leaks to the media.

“My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked,” he told the Post on June 12. “That is why I accepted that position about three months ago.”

[burnodo]

30. Well, good for him!

He was endeavoring to expose illegal US government activities. He should be considered a hero. Or, do you like US government criminality to stay in the dark?

[Whisp]

34. lol! okay. Let's encourage more of that kind of theft.

Road Warrior, Mad Max - the Paul's do like that idea too.

oh, and fuck them. Fuck the Pauls.

[burnodo]

40. the Pauls

oh jesus...what a way to prop up your argument!

[uponit7771]

46. no...no .. fuck the over racist bastard pauls, ....fuck em good too...

[burnodo]

49. I think you might need some sleep

you're getting punchy

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

82. When the Government does *wrong they should be exposed.

*Murder, torture, spying, cover-ups, graft, etc. Regardless of D or R Government is ours.

Once one stops believing that Government is accountable to the people the Government won't be accountable to the people.

This dirty LibRul is sure damn glad that Government gets a kick in the pants every now and then.


Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden:

Appeasers and cheer leaders of any Admin that wants to hide the truth:

[Swagman]

85. I applaud Snowden for exposing the Enemy Within and

that enemy was closer than i thought.

[uponit7771]

35. Link and quote ANY of the activities PROVEN to be illegal and I'm not talking about internal

...audits that no one believes anyway about non prove to be purposeful oversteps either

thx

[burnodo]

41. "I'm not talking about internal audits that no one believes anyway"

So you admit there is no real oversight of these criminal activities on the part of the US government?

[uponit7771]

42. No, I admit I'd like the link and quote proof of law breaking I asked for

I gave what was requested I'd like the respect as same

regards

[burnodo]

51. Your post showed that the audit was a joke

which means you know they're breaking the law and noone in your vaunted government seems to care about it

[uponit7771]

54. False, and still no link and quote. My post said no one would believe them as they haven't

...not including myself which I could care less about.

I vote for people who lean towards proper oversight of these agencies, I don't demonize them because they haven't done said oversight the way I want

[burnodo]

84. They haven't done ANY oversight

then LIED about it!

[one_voice]

57. Really?

Maybe I don't condone ANY criminal activity.

And don't act as if Snowden happened upon this information. This was done with forethought.

He thought out and planned this crime. Yes, stealing is a crime in this country.

No he's not a fucking hero. He's a common thief. No better than someone that picks your pocket, hell he probably has some of your information.

This is not an excuse for the sorry ass spying that's going on either. That's wrong too.

[burnodo]

88. OK, but you're trying to tell me what Snowden did was a crime

but without that crime there would be no exposure of the sorry ass spying. That is contradictory.

It used to be a crime to free slaves. It still is a crime to be in posession of cannabis in most places. All crimes are the same? All crimes are crimes?

[one_voice]

96. No, you don't get to compare...

what Snowden did to slavery. NOT even in the same universe and frankly it's insulting as hell.

I'm not trying to tell you anything, he stole, stealing is a crime. It's that simple.

There's nothing contradictory about what I said. Snowden didn't expose anything. NOT A DAMN THING.

So I reiterate, my distaste for what Snowden did is not an excuse for the sorry ass spying that's going on.

I never said all crimes were the same. Show me where I said that. Stop fucking putting words in my mouth and reading shit into my comment that wasn't there.

[burnodo]

97. so your definition of crimes is all that matters

and if Snowden didn't expose anything, WHY THE FUCK HAVE WE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HIM FOR 3 MONTHS?!?!?!

[one_voice]

103. Stop twisting shit...

I didn't make up any definitions for crime.

Is stealing a crime? Yes. That's the extent of what I said. I didn't say all crime was the same. I didn't make up any definitions. Stop being dishonest and putting words in my mouth.

Don't take this the wrong way, but have you been living under a fucking rock?

We've known about this since Babybush was in office. Snowden took shit from the gov and ran....he leaked shit about the UK and China too that was new. But the spying...not new.

Jesus Christ dude pay attention there's a story on the first page of GD about it being known back in 2006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3496919

Stop yelling.

[burnodo]

105. Stealing what?

Evidence of wrongdoing by the government?

Again, if everything Snowden exposed was known, then the major kerfuffel were under now shouldn't be happening. And Obama's lying about NSA spying then his walkback less than a week later should be MORE than enough to convince you that SNowden's "crime was the crime of whistleblowing.

[one_voice]

106. Does it matter?...

If you take something that doesn't belong to you it's stealing. end. of. story. I don't need convincing of anything. He's a thief.


I'm done playing your games. go yank someone else's chain, I know what you are.

[burnodo]

108. Oh? What am I?

Please explain!!

And, again, if you went to a slaveowners property and freed his slaves, you'd be guilty of stealing. It's a crime! It's a crime!

[uponit7771]

130. AMEN!!!

[Swagman]

80. yes I congratulate him as well. And I believe he has been extraordinarily brave

considering there are even some on DU who would string him up without a trial just for merely hanging out with the Ruskies.

[Swagman]

78. did you break the law ?

you seem to have read all about Snowden and Greenwald's writings and so on...perhaps you broke the law by even commenting on information you think was illegally obtained.

you should turn yourself in today.

[Ken Burch]

29. So you'd have said the Freedom Riders and those who helped them had it coming?

They did "break the law"

So are people who defend gays from slander and insult in Russia, at this moment.

So did people who gave Central American refugees sanctuary in the 1980's.

So did those who helped bring in food and supplies to help the Wounded Knee uprising in 1973.

So did people who protected Jews in Germany.

So did those who helped slaves escape.

A country where "the law is the law and that's all that matters" cannot be a country with humane values, and it cannot be free.

[uponit7771]

36. For helping people register to vote? nope

You do understand where you question is going right?

tia

[Ken Burch]

38. My point is that you cannot cite "the law" when the law is unjust.

"The Law is the Law" is a right-wing concept and can NEVER have anything but right-wing, anti-woman, antigay, anti-worker, anti-poor, anti-pluralist applications. The law is never neutral, and it always biases towards the rich.

[uponit7771]

44. Then you change the law from inside not break it needlessly and the argument of

... the US governments justice system is corrupt is a benefit Snowden supporters would NOT .. NOT give EVERY SINGLE PERSON OF COLOR in America seeing statistically people of color have a BETTER reason to fear the US justice system more than Snowden

[Ken Burch]

59. I agree that people of color have it worse under our legal system...and you already knew I did.

Who is to say that what Greenwald and Miranda did here was a "needless" breach of the law?

Should we just trust those who are secrecy fetishists simply because we have a supposedly Democratic president?

Remember, it was under several Democratic presidents that J. Edgar Hoover persecuted leftists, used clandestine powers to help preserve Jim Crow, and possibly conspired in the murders of major American figures in the legitimate struggle for justice for all.

Only the rich would benefit from Snowden being punished anyway. Arresting and persecuting him(as they have persecuted Bradley Manning)could never be for the good of the people. Secrecy is the enemy of all that is positive in life.

[Wilms]

68. "Needlessly?" Seems the stimulus it provides is needed.

Did MLK, Parks, and thousands of others "needlessly" break the law?

You, like others, seem to view (or wish to portray) what is being revealed as an attack on Obama, rather than an effort to expose the fact that the Constitution is under attack. Seeing it as a personal matter (or claiming that it is in order to further the position), responding in kind by making personal attacks on Greenwald and Snowden. If that is true, it's regrettable.

[Recursion]

102. OK, but document classification is not "unjust"

It's byzantine and problematic, and needs to be reformed, but the existence of classified documents is not itself comparable to Jim Crow.

And the big problem here is the baby and bathwater are inextricably linked. There's stuff that's classified that shouldn't be. There's stuff that's classified that seems like it shouldn't be but when you combine it with other stuff that's also classified suddenly makes sense that it's classified. (And keep in mind "Confidential", the level that protects your medical history, SSN, etc., is a form of classification.) There's been a 20-year-long push tighten this up and classify fewer things, and it's born some fruit, but this is going to take a long time.

[morningfog]

67. A suspected terrorist?

[Warren Stupidity]

83. So the NYT and Washington Post reporters and editors who aided and abetted

Daniel Ellsberg should have been arrested and imprisoned?

Should all journalists who "aid and abet" whistleblowers who reveal government secrets be prosecuted? Is that really your position?

[bowens43]

126. so all laws should be obeyed even when those laws violate basic civil liberties??????

[Luminous Animal]

18. People are calling him a mule and a trafficker. They are infantilizing him

by stating that Greenwald used him... they are doing their best to turn him into the "other".

[Thinkingabout]

27. If he went on a mission to transport laptops, ets for GG then he is classified as a mule.

GG used him, his partner to transport information which was suspected to be stolen information, therefore putting Miranda in possession of stolen property and in some places having stolen property in your possession is a crime.

[Ken Burch]

69. Using the term "mule" in this context implies that there is no moral difference

between releasing unjustly classified information and trafficking in drugs.

Drug trafficking kills. What Snowden, Greenwald, and Miranda are doing can only SAVE lives. Secrecy is never for humane or life-affirming purposes, and it never protects GOOD people. All those involved in secrecy and espionage ouare working to make worse. There simply can't ever be a humanistic, progressive, liberating secrecy. Secrecy is simply the facilitation of killing and oppression.

[creeksneakers2]

93. We don't know if the information deserves to be

published or not. Greenwald said he is angry and is now willing to publish information to get even with the government. That goes beyond just acting in the public interest.

The word "mule" is probably being used for lack of a better one word term.

There can be good reasons for secrecy. Should the police inform the public before they go on a child pornography raid?

[Thinkingabout]

111. GG has been publishing information, maybe Miranda should punish GG for setting him up.

[Thinkingabout]

110. Mule, the device of transportation, Miranda was a mule for GG, GG did not want to transport

the items, so he set up Miranda as his mule to transport the items. Beast of burden.

[Skittles]

31. because they care more about Obama's reputation than the direction America is headed

[cantbeserious]

47. Precisely - IMHO - Dedicated Obama Supporters Are Having Difficulty Supporting A Bush Era Program

Now having grown substantially under Obama.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

50. Sadly, it seems cognitive dissonance is at play with some people here.

It's not hard to imagine how some of the defenders would be reacting if McCain or Romney were in office and the same things were happening.

[Skittles]

64. they'd be reacting differently if it was a Dem other than Obama, too

this Tiger Beat-type of adoration will end at the end of his term

[Summer Hathaway]

116. And the Tiger-Beat adoration

of Greenwald, Snowden, Manning and Assange will end the minute the next new shiny object gets dangled in front of the easily led.

[NorthCarolina]

52. More likely they are knowingly facilitating the direction America is headed. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. BINGO

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

87. Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding

[RetroLounge]

107. This! Exactly this!

RL

[forestpath]

37. K&R

[quakerboy]

55. Because the term "Democrat" has been coopted

Those "core values" are not universally accepted by those who call themselves Democrats. We have a "big tent" full of "Democrats" and it includes everyone from center right members, all the way over to full blown centrists. Sometimes they are kind enough even to make center left people feel comfortable in the party. They do seem intent on excluding progressive left from being welcome in the party. But that's the price you pay for corporate sponsorship.

[mia]

56. How can any sentient being defend this?

Cuts across all lines that define morality and ideology of whatever sort. Who gains from this?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

70. You ARE aware that Greenwald's partner was caught with stolen classified info, right?

He's not some innocent little waif like the screamers try to make him out to be.

That said, I'm really not up enough on British law to know if this detention is legal in their system or not.
I do know that your rights when crossing the border are extremely low, especially when you are not a citizen.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Ken Burch]

76. So what if the information was "classified"? our national security state is so out of control

that it classifies everything, whether releasing the info would harm anything or not. And Britain is even worse about this...they're still holding secrets from World War ONE, for God's sakes(are they afraid the Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns are gonna try for a comeback?)

You can't trust any regime about what should and shouldn't be classified. And secrecy isn't more legitimate just because we have a Democratic president. There wasn't any moral difference between the top secret operations Nixon carried out and the ones JFK carried out...most of them, in both cases, were just terrorist acts to keep the world's poor in their place...face it, folks that's all "anticommunism" ever really meant.

[DeSwiss]

99. I-binned :-| n/t

[RetroLounge]

109. ...

RL

[Skittles]

117. "reality-based commnunity"

[Caretha]

129. Huh?

You ARE aware that Greenwald's partner was caught with stolen classified info, right?

No I didn't know that. Give. me. a. link.

Seems to me if your above assertion is true, they would have arrested his ass and he'd been in the klinker right now.

Making false accusations is libel and against the law btw, and at the very least it shows you are simply a liar.

Maybe you should change your handle to ConservativeDemocratLiar

[ConservativeDemocrat]

135. Here's your link

http://joshuafoust.com/extraordinary-court-statement/

Bottom line: According to court documents, it turns out he was carrying 58,000 pages of classified UK documents, including a list of British spies worldwide.

And it's actually not illegal to possess or know classified information. It's only illegal to pass it on to someone if you have been entrusted with it.

Although your border crossings might be a bit more difficult.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[MotherPetrie]

58. Because they are raging hypocrites who will defend anything a govt. agency that answers to Obama

does, when previously, under Bush, they would have condemned the exact same thing. Just like how Freeperville used to defend everything Bush did that was condemned here.

[liberal N proud]

60. It's not democrat issue

That kind of shit is what I hear from republicans when they want to sway opinion.

[jazzimov]

66. How could any Democrat put his partner

in harm's way like that?

Would you have someone you claimed to LOVE used like that?

I hate Greenwald more for putting his lover in harms way. No feeling person would have done that.

[Ken Burch]

79. You can't put this on Greenwald.

There was never any justification for detaining Miranda, and nothing either of them did here can POSSIBLY dbe equated to "terrorism&quot a word, btw, that is not all-but-stripped of any actual meaning and should probably be retired).

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. Travelling through the UK is 'in harm's way'?

Do you approve of the UK being a regime which you regard as a danger to people?

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. there is a struggle between those of us who believe in the liberal and democratic society and those

who believe in the authoritarian state. This struggle does not go strictly down party or ideological lines. It is shocking to find that people who we thought believe in the liberal and democratic society only believe in it when it is politically convenient.

[mia]

77. Thank you for stating it so well.

I don't believe in the authoritarian state.

[Little Star]

127. hear, hear.

[gopiscrap]

91. I agree

[DeSwiss]

98. Oh that question's easy to answer -- they can't.

Thus, they do not represent any Democratic Party values that I can acknowledge ever having existed prior to the advent of the current administration. And thus I do not consider them Democrats.

I mean, yes this is bad. But goddamn, these mofo's have deep-sixed due process!!! HELLO!?!?!? They're justifying the murder of American citizens without any oversight. NO DUE PROCESS!!! You getting that!?!?! Fuck that shit! Okay?

So to me, they're just fascists. Pure and simple. Which is okay by me. You're free to express your own opinions and beliefs. But anyone espousing support for this bullshit, is a fascist. Period.

- I hope we cleared that up......

K&R

[backscatter712]

121. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Which is why I ask why they are allowed here.

Isn't this a left-wing board?

This is supposed to be Democratic Underground, not Fascist Underground. I don't come here to engage with fascists.

If they can't uphold Democratic values, perhaps they should go to a place where their ideas would get a better reception...

[sabrina 1]

100. I don't know any Democrats who ever supported these Bush policies and I don't any

Democrats who support these Stasi tactics or ever did. I actually don't know too many people regardless of their politics, who support any of this. Other than maybe a few Fox viewers and Limbaugh listeners so long as it happens to a Liberals. But they are way out there on the fringes.

[Caretha]

131. Good point Sabrina

and frankly I'm getting where I have about as much respect for them as I do the right-wing dickwads & teabagger knuckleheads.

[creeksneakers2]

104. I don't decide everything by whose side

I want to be on. First, I want to know the facts about why Miranda was detained. Trying to stay objective makes me a better Democrat.

[TheKentuckian]

112. My friend, these folks see the exact same world a TeaPubliKlan does

They are just cut from a little better quality and brainier cloth.

Less bigoted, don't seriously entertain the idea of Adam and Eve riding dinosaurs, believe in the concept of government (some mostly due to no other rational options to manage populations in the millions and even billions in many ways and others who are pretty deep into the authoritarian axis), and some of them can in some fashion fathom that paying taxes isn't some heinous punishment (though for a nice chunk such only applies to folks that used to get featured by Robin Leach and then just a wee bit or we lose them).

I don't think the nearly full spectrum tent allows for even the cohesion of shared values so we are in a party with folks we ideologically oppose, don't share common values, have a widely divergent view of the purpose of government even if we can cobble together some agreement on role which cannot help but to seriously impact goals.

[Summer Hathaway]

113. Over the years that I've been reading DU

one of the most frequently used phrases has been that "Democrats don't lockstep" the way Republicans do.

It was part of DU's appeal, the idea that despite disagreement on some very serious issues - often vehement disagreement - individuals were free to express their views without having their "Dem-cred" questioned.

What I have seen of late - especially when it comes to the topic of Snowden/Greenwald - is posts like yours, asking how ANY Democrat can think, defend, promote, etc. any statement, action, or behavior that is contrary to what a certain contingent here has deemed to be acceptable. In other words, it is a very thinly-disguised admonition to lockstep.

On the particular subject of Miranda's detention, it should be obvious that this is not a black-and-white issue. Greenwald has made statements that are threatening (e.g. the US should be on its knees hoping he doesn't disclose all he knows), has demonstrated a total lack of responsibility and/or understanding of the consequences of his actions, and has made no secret of his anti-Obama administration agenda and his Libertarian leanings, and has shown himself to be an attention-whore of the highest order when it comes to insinuating himself into the starring role of every news story he prints.

Given the circumstances, it would seem apparent that Miranda WOULD BE detained and questioned as a matter of course while acting as a paid courier to transmit documents that could well be detrimental to the national security of the UK, as well as the US. To insist (as many here are doing) that Miranda was a disinterested party with no involvement in this matter other than being Greenwald's spouse is not merely misleading - it flies in the face of the facts as they are known.

"If you support the core values of the Democratic Party, doesn't that give you a personal obligation to OPPOSE the national security state when it clearly oversteps its boundaries? When it treats people like terrorists just because they engage in free speech?"

I am a Democrat and, like many other Democrats, I do not see "the national security state" (?) over-stepping its boundaries when it detains and questions someone who's motives are questionable. I also do not see Greenwald as merely "engaging in free speech" so much as attempting to make a buck by hyping what he thinks he knows in order to sell himself as a journalist to be reckoned with - new book in the offing, all publicity more than appreciated.

Unless Greenwald is the stupidest man who ever lived, he KNEW Miranda would be detained - in fact, as things turned out, I'm sure he was counting on it.

You and others here have deified Greenwald (and Snowden - remember him?), and it is certainly your prerogative to do so.

But when you imply that ANY Democrat who refuses to lockstep behind your hero is not supportive of core Democratic values, you are the one doing the over-stepping.

I, as many here, am NOT a lockstepper. I am free to form my own opinions about Greenwald, Snowden, Manning, Assange - and anyone and anything else. I do not need your stamp of approval as to what opinions are acceptable, nor your interpretation of what constitutes core Democratic values.

[Cha]

115. Thank you for your post, Summer.. a voice

in the wilderness. Glad I got to read it.

[sheshe2]

120. Thank you Summer.

Well said, very well said!

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. Opinion of a lawyer who piloted the 2000 Act through the Lords: Miranda should not have been detaine

David Miranda's detention had no basis in law, says former lord chancellor

Lord Falconer, who helped introduce Terrorism Act 2000, criticises home secretary's backing of police action at Heathrow

"But that section plainly doesn't apply here. What is happening is they are targeting Miranda because they believe that he may have information that has been obtained from [the US whistleblower Edward] Snowden. The reason that doesn't fall within schedule 7 is because: even assuming that they think there is material which has been obtained in breach of the Officials Secrets Act, the action of Miranda or anybody he is acting with could not be described as somebody concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. You could not reasonably believe, if you were the state, that Miranda is commissioning or assisting somebody to commission terrorism, to prepare terrorism or to instigate terrorism."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/david-miranda-law-detention-heathrow

There is excellent British legal opinion that the detention was not legally justified. It is simply not true to say Snowden 'knew' Miranda would be detained. He may have guessed the British government would overstep the mark, but you cannot count on the government doing the wrong thing all the time. Sometimes, they do obey the law. They just didn't this time.

[frazzled]

114. Good heavens

Since when does a 9-hour airport questioning turn into the most outrageous "detention" in the history of the world?

Try getting detained in Brazil, where reports of torture, according to Human Rights Watch, are abundant: http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/brazil?page=1

Try getting detained in China, like the artist Ai Wei Wei, who was detained for 81 days in a tiny solitary prison cell, for ... having spoken out about shoddy construction that led to the deaths of 5000 school children in the 2008 Sichuan earthquake? http://www.npr.org/2013/08/19/212711357/ai-weiwei-exhibit-shines-light-on-time-as-political-prisoner

What the hell are we even talking about here? Since when does this turn into a litmus test of one's liberalness and become a statement about "the workers, the poor, and peace"? I've had it up to here with this libertarian melodrama.

[great white snark]

119. "libertarian melodrama" sums it up nicely.

I hope people here can truly grasp the colossal difference between "liberals" and Liberal Democrats whenever these purity tactics are used.

[Ken Burch]

134. It only stopped at 9 hours because, if they'd kept the guy any longer,

they'd have had to explain to parliament WHY they were detaining him.

BTW, nobody was minimizing the other acts of detention you listed, and you damn well know it. The UK and the US are supposed to be better than places like that when it comes to human rights, though.

[Little Milly]

118. How can any American oppose it?

[bowens43]

128. enjoy your probably brief stay.....

[Little Milly]

132. Memo to self: Must join group hysteria or stay will be brief.

[1awake]

123. Because there is a group here on DU who are true Authoritarian Fascists

but only when they're man/woman is in charge. To be clear, that does in no way cover everyone who either questions Snowden/Greenwald or who may support the surveillance programs(s).